But let us now proceed to the sayings of holy John of Constantinople, so that either he too, together with Theodore his old friend and fellow-disciple from the beginning, may bear the common odium from the Eutychians, or else may drive it away both from himself and from the Synod of Chalcedon. In a certain sermon, whose beginning is 'Again the course of horses,' he speaks thus: 'When therefore He says, If it be possible, let this cup pass, and, Not as I will, but as Thou wilt, He shows nothing other than that He was truly clothed about with flesh that fears death. For to fear death, and to draw back, and to have agony, belongs to that flesh. Now indeed He left it deserted and bare of its proper operation, so that, showing its weakness, He might manifest its nature.'
Now indeed already in the third book we have proved how the same blessed John taught that Christ feared death according to His humanity. But we wish only this to be noted, that he says: Now indeed He left it deserted and bare of its proper operation—although we believe that God the Word so united it to Himself into one subsistence that it can never be torn from Him for eternity; yet in a right sense, which the folly of the Eutychians could not track out nor their impiety calmly and reverently receive, John declares it was deserted by Him. He again, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, in the third book, says: 'Consider how great a distance lies between the nature of man and of God, and from this lowliness to that honor He brought him down'—
'not by one degree did He transcend, both a second and a third hold thou: not simply did He say upward, but above upward, for He is higher than the powers on high. Therefore He raised up thither him who is of us; from the uttermost bound to the supreme principality He raised him, after which there is no other honor: above every, he says, principality—not this indeed, yet not that—but also above every power and virtue and dominion, and every name that is named in heaven and in earth, He was made higher. This is worthy to be marveled at concerning Him who was raised from the dead, but concerning God the Word by no means.' Nor here, by saying that the divine nature raised up the assumed one who is of us, did he wish two sons to be understood.
Whence we ought not so to take that which he said at the end of this sentence: This is worthy to be marveled at concerning Him who was raised from the dead, but concerning God the Word by no means. Likewise in the same book: 'For He did two very great things,' he says; 'He Himself came into the lowest humiliation, He raised up man into great excellence, He saved us in His blood. He said the former first—He who humbled Himself so greatly; He says this afterward—great and supreme. And although we had been made worthy of nothing, it would have sufficed; and if, apart from this, we had been made worthy without the slaying, it would have sufficed: but since there are two, whose greatness of discourse would not surpass and transcend it?' The resurrection is not something great, when I consider these things: of this man he says:
the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, not concerning God the Word. But who would even here call John an inventor of the Nestorian dogma because he said: He Himself came into the lowest humiliation; likewise: God the Word raised man into great excellence; likewise: He in whose blood He saved us? Or because lower down he says, of this man he says, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, not of God the Word—as though our Lord Jesus Christ were not, according to the unity of subsistence, Himself also God the Word. In his interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in sermon 14, concerning that which is written, As the consummation was through the Levitical priesthood, he speaks thus: 'Another prophet says, Guile was not found in His mouth; that is, no craftiness.
Perhaps someone might say this of God, and is not ashamed in saying that God is not crafty nor guileful. But concerning Him who is according to the flesh, he will perhaps have grounds for it.' Here too, although he says that what the prophet said—Guile was not found in His mouth—was written not of God the Word but of Him who is according to the flesh, yet he did not wish two Christs or sons to be understood. Likewise in his sermon on the Ascension of the Lord, whose beginning is 'Today we celebrate a wonderful festival': 'It was indeed fitting,' he says, 'to state the difference thus. To His angels indeed He says: Who maketh His angels spirits (Heb. 1:7); but to the Son, The Lord created me: or because God made Him Lord and Christ.
But neither was that said of the Son, nor this of God the Word, but of Him who is according to the flesh.' You see how John in this sentence too says that it was not said of the Son, He created me, but of Him who is according to the flesh; and yet it should not be believed by true and pious faithful that he denied that He who is according to the flesh is the Son.